Screening for impaired vision in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older in primary care settings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
mpaired vision is an important health burden in both developed and developing countries, particularly among older adults. The proportion of adults with vision impairment is expected to double in Canada by 2032, as the population ages. measured visual acuity of worse than 20/40 is often observed as the threshold at which impaired vision results in functional limitations. Reduced visual acuity is the result of a poor or distorted image reaching the retina because of refractive errors, corneal opacities or cataracts, retinal disease, or problems with the central processing of visual neural signals. Impaired vision from refractive error or cataracts can be addressed by corrective lenses or other vision-related treatment, including surgical correction of cataracts, whereas interventions for retinal disease or processing of neural signals depend on the specific nature of the disorder. ] Self-reported data on vision care from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey 10 showed that 59% of adults aged 65 years and older had consulted an eye care professional in the previous year. Comprehensive eye examinations for adults aged 65 years and older are covered by most provincial governments across Canada and are usually free at point of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it